Suttles v. Vogel

• Decision Date: 21 December 1988
• Docket Number: No. 66167,66167
• Citation: 127 Ill.Dec. 819,533 N.E.2d 901,126 Ill. 2d 186
• Parties: , 127 Ill.Dec. 819 Norman L. SUTTLES et al., Appellees, v. Peter J. VOGEL et al., Appellants.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 901

533 N.E.2d 901

126 Ill.2d 186, 127 Ill.Dec. 819

Norman L. SUTTLES et al., Appellees, v.Peter J. VOGEL et al., Appellants.

No. 66167.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 21, 1988.

Long, Rabin & Young, Ltd., Springfield (Duane D. Young and Paul J. Bargiel, of counsel), for appellants.

Steven Mottaz, of Thomas, Mottaz, Eastman & Sherwood, Alton, for appelleesNorman L. Suttles and Lula Mae Suttles.

James R. Morrison, of Westervelt, Johnson, Nicoll & Keller, Peoria, for appelleesLeo F. Carroll and Flynn & Flynn.

Chief Justice THOMAS J. MORANdelivered the opinion of the court:

Norman and Lula Mae Suttles(Suttles) brought a cross-action in the circuit court of Greene County seeking to impose a constructive trust upon 426 acres of farmland owned by Peter and Gerda Vogel(Vogels).The circuit court entered a default judgment against the Vogels as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery rules and denied their motion to vacate the default judgment.The Vogels appealed.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed, finding: (1) the Suttles' amended counterclaim stated a cause of action for constructive trust; (2)the circuit court's entry of default judgment as a discovery sanction against the Vogels and its subsequent refusal to vacate such judgment were within the circuit court's discretion; and (3) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel were inapplicable in the present action.(160 Ill.App.3d 464, 112 Ill.Dec. 149, 513 N.E.2d 563.)This court granted the Vogels' petition for leave to appeal(107 Ill.2d R. 315).

The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the Suttles' amended counterclaim states a cause of action for constructive trust; (2) if so, whether the circuit court's entry of default judgment as a discovery sanction against the Vogels and its subsequent refusal to vacate such judgment constitute an abuse of discretion; and (3) whether the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel bar the present action.

This case derives from the outcome of a previous forcible entry and detainer action brought by the Vogels against the Suttles (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 110, par. 9-102), which was decided by this court in Vogel v. Dawdy(1985), 107 Ill.2d 68, 89 Ill.Dec. 836, 481 N.E.2d 679(Vogel I ).We summarize the facts in Vogel I as they pertain to this action.I. VOGEL I

--PRIOR FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER ACTION

On March 14, 1979, the Vogels entered into a contract to sell 811 acres of farmland to Jim and Carolyn Dawdy.The Vogels' contract with the Dawdys contained nonassignability, insurance maintenance and tax assumption clauses.The contract provided that a breach of any provision would be considered a default, warranting forfeiture.Two days later, on March 16, 1979, the Dawdys entered into a contract to sell 426 of the 811 acres to the Suttles.(The Dawdys also contracted to sell the remaining 385 acres to Norwood and Barbara Ashley.)The Vogels later learned of the Dawdys' division and sale of the 811 acres and demanded that the Dawdys cure the breaches.

The Dawdys failed to remedy the breaches, and on June 11, 1980, the Vogels filed suit against the Suttles, among others, in the circuit court of Greene County pursuant to the forcible entry and detainer statute(Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 110, par. 9-102), seeking possession of the entire 811 acres of land.

After a bench trial, judgment was entered June 28, 1983, granting the Vogels possession of the 426 acres of farmland held by the Suttles.The Suttles appealed the circuit court's decision, which was affirmed by both the appellate court(Vogel v. Dawdy(1984), 123 Ill.App.3d 356, 78 Ill.Dec. 685, 462 N.E.2d 804) and this court(Vogel v. Dawdy(1985), 107 Ill.2d 68, 89 Ill.Dec. 836, 481 N.E.2d 679).

II.SUTTLES v. VOGEL--PRESENT CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ACTION

On March 31, 1983, the State Bank of Jerseyville filed suit to foreclose a mortgage, executed by the Vogels, on the 811 acres of farmland.The Bank's suit named the Vogels and the Suttles, among others, as defendants.On May 5, 1983, after the forcible entry and detainer action in VogelI was filed, but before final judgment was entered in that case, the Suttles answered and filed three counterclaims, including one against the Vogels, and a third-party complaint against their former attorneys, including Leo Carroll.

On July 22, 1983, the State Bank of Jerseyville moved to dismiss the foreclosure suit, because the Vogels cured the default.On September 14, 1983, the circuit court dismissed the foreclosure suit, leaving only the Suttles' counterclaims and third-party complaint.

On April 23, 1984, the Suttles filed an amended count II of the counterclaim against the Vogels.At that time, the Vogels had received $800,000 in payments from the Dawdys pursuant to their land sale contract.The Suttles' amended counterclaim alleged that the Dawdys received $600,000 in payments from the Suttles pursuant to their land sale contract.The counterclaim also alleged that of the $800,000 the Vogels received from the Dawdys, $600,000 is "attributable" to payments the Dawdys received from the Suttles.The counterclaim further alleged that the Vogels have been "unjustly enriched" because they recovered the 426 acres of farmland from the Suttles in Vogel I and retained the $600,000 in payments "attributable" to the Suttles.The Suttles finally allege that they are owed $600,000 and seek to impose a constructive trust upon the 426 acres of farmland which the Vogels recovered from them in Vogel I.

Count II of the Suttles' amended counterclaim, which is the subject of the present case, provides in part:

"3.That [the Vogels] * * * knew that [the Suttles] were purchasing the property from Jim G. and Carolyn S. Dawdy and were making the payments under said contract and were paying the real estate taxes on the property.

4.That [the Vogels] accepted the benefits of the contract between the Dawdy's [sic ] and [the Suttles] and have received payments on the contract attributable to [the Suttles] in excess of $60,000 [sic ].

5.That while contract for deed * * * between [the Vogels] and Dawdys contained a non-assignment clause, [the Vogels] knew of the assignment by Dawdy to [the Suttles] in 1979.In March of 1980[the Suttles] spoke to [the Vogels] to determine whether a contract payment made by them to Dawdys had likewise precipitated payment to [the Vogels].That [the Vogels] have acquiesced in or ratified the assignment by the Dawdys.[The Vogels] by failing to object to the assignment when first it was acknowledged, are estopped from later claiming that the assignment was ineffective.

6.That [the Vogels] have indirectly received purchase money from [the Suttles] as third-party beneficiaries of the Dawdy-Suttles Contract * * *.

7.That permitting the retention of purchase price payments traced to [the Vogels] as well as the other beneficial payments and improvements made, would unjustly enrich [the Vogels].

8.That equity will raise a constructive trust in the circumstances of this transaction, to the extent of [the Vogels'] unfair profiting at [the Suttles'] expense.

9.That the extent of [the Suttles'] beneficial interest in [the Vogels'] property and the amount by which [the Vogels are] presently being unjustly enriched is $600,000."

On July 19, 1984, Carroll, the Suttles' former attorney and a third-party defendant in a third-party complaint filed by them, submitted a request for production of documents to all parties, including the Vogels, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 214(107 Ill.2d R. 214).The Vogels did not respond until August 14, 1985, thirteen months after Carroll's discovery request.During those 13 months, the Vogels received two Rule 214requests for production of documents, four Rule 201(k) letters (107 Ill.2d R. 201(k)) requesting production of documents, and three circuit court orders to compel production of the requested documents.The Vogels neither responded to these requests and orders nor appeared at any of the discovery hearings.As a result, default judgment was entered against them.

The Vogels finally responded on August 14, 1985, and moved to vacate the default judgment.During the next five months, from August 14, 1985, to January 23, 1986, the circuit court conditionally vacated the default judgment against the Vogels and extended the time for them to satisfy the conditions for vacating the default judgment.

On January 23, 1986, following 18 months of futile efforts to get the Vogels to produce the documents, the circuit court denied their second motion for an extension of time, one that falsely claimed that they had complied with the court's second condition for vacating default judgment; denied their motion to vacate default judgment; reentered default judgment against them as a discovery sanction; and imposed the constructive trust sought by the Suttles.

The first issue presented for review is whether the Suttles' amended counterclaim states a cause of action for constructive trust, because a default judgment must be reversed when the complaint upon which that judgment is premised fails to state a cause of action.Roe v. Cook County(1934), 358 Ill. 568, 570, 193 N.E. 472;Buck v. Citizens' Coal Mining Co.(1912), 254 Ill. 198, 202, 98 N.E. 228.

"A constructive trust is one raised by operation of law as distinguished from a trust created by express agreement between the settlor and the trustee."(Perry v. Wyeth(1962), 25 Ill.2d 250, 253, 184 N.E.2d 861.)A constructive trust is created when a court declares the party in possession of wrongfully acquired property as the constructive trustee of that property (Charles Hester Enterprises, Inc. v. Illinois Founders Insurance Co.(1986), 114 Ill.2d 278, 293, 102 Ill.Dec. 306, 499 N.E.2d 1319), because it would be inequitable for that party to retain possession of the property.The sole duty of the constructive trustee is to transfer title and possession of the wrongfully acquired property...